Evidence Hub

Gut Faecalibacterium abundance in patients with plasma cell disorders is associated with survival after autologous HSCT

Dean EA, Roy A, Lin RY, Gharaibeh RZ, Li DM, Gauthier J, Jobin C, Wingard JR

Blood neoplasia, 2025

82 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

The gut microbiota (GM) has been linked to the development, progression, and response to therapy in plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs). The primary goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between the composition of the GM before and during autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) with clinical outcomes of patients with PCNs. We focused on the genus Faecalibacterium, which includes the most abundant anaerobic commensal bacterium in the GM. Fecal samples were collected prospectively before, mid (at 1 week from the start of intervention), and end (at engraftment) of intervention (liberalized vs neutropenic diet) and subjected to 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing. Eighty-three patients were enrolled. Their median age was 64 (range, 31-79) years. Fifty-four patients received HSCT as part of frontline therapy and 29 for relapsed/refractory disease. With median follow-up time for survivors (n = 82) of 32 (range, 0.7-61) months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 40 months. Higher preintervention Faecalibacterium abundance was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.99; P = .02). Faecalibacterium abundance was found to decrease early after transplant (P 2) was significantly associated with PFS in both univariable (HR, 0.38, 95% CI, 0.19-0.75; P = .006) and multivariable (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.87; P = .02) analyses, preintervention Faecalibacterium abundance remained independently associated with PFS…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 82 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free